STRONG DENIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26777, 21 May 1948, Page 4

STRONG DENIAL

NOT “WINDY” AUCKLAND’S SHIELD CHALLENGE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS The outburst by Mr E. P. York, a selector and member of the Management Committee of the Auckland Rugby Union, in which he alleged that Otago was “ windy about meeting Auckland ” has been received in Dunedin with a mixture of amusement, indignation, scorn, and contempt. On one point, however, players, officials, and members of the Rugby-minded public are agreed—the assertion is without a shadow of foundation. The president of the Otago Rugby Union, Mr R. W. S. Bolting, who is on holiday in Wanaka, expressed great surprise at the charge made when he was informed of it by the Daily Times yesterday. “I am amazed to hear such a sentiment expressed in Auckland, with whose delegates we had the friendliest of discussions,” he said. “ I do not for one moment think that the view expressed by Mr York is representative of a cross-section of the Management Committee of the Auckland Rugby Union.” Mr Botting added that Otago was already committed to eight Ranfurly Shield matches in the current season, in spite of the fact that delegates at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union had expressed the opinion that no province should be expected to play more than six in any one season. In addition, there were three South Island trial matches and one New Zealand trial to be held. Two of the shield matches were being played as mid-week fixtures, but in both cases the games were against touring teams, which had a prior right in the matter of challenges.

“We played one mid-week match last year,” he continued, “ but public feeling was so strongly against it that we were unable to receive South Canterbury. Auckland cannot expect to receive special privileges all the time.” Mr Botting added that the Rugby season started a little later in Dunedin than in Auckland because the cricket authorities had the use of Carisbrook until March 31 each year. As it was, it would be possible to play only four matches in the second round of the senior championship before the representative season made further club matches problematical. “ I am sympathetic to Auckland, and so is the management committee of the Otago Rugby Union,” Mr Botting said, “ and in that connection mine was no voice crying in the wilderness.” It is, however, one thing to be sympathetic and another to be foolish and treasonable, and if Mr York made his statement with a full knowledge of the facts contained in the Otago Rugby Union’s letter to the Auckland Rugby Union it seems an unfortunate and ill-timed utterance on his part. “ In any case,” Mr Botting continued, “it is hard to see how an outburst like Mr York’s can help to improve the position for Auckland, and to say that we are ‘ windy ’—to use Mr York s eloauent expression—is as unfortunate as it is untrue.” When Mr York’s remarks were referred to the treasurer of the Otago Rugby Union, Mr H, C. Williamson, he expressed indignation at the accusation. “Neither the Rugby Union, the players, nor the Otago public are ‘windy,’” he said. “Nine representative matches, including the game at Invercargill and eight shield challenges constituted a 'sufficiently heavy programme for any representative team, when club fixtures have also to be taken into consideration.”